FIR and Charge Sheet for Rape, Cheating, and Criminal Intimidation Quashed; Consent in Long-Term Relationships Distinguished from Misconception of Fact: Karnataka High Court

“A False Promise of Marriage Constitutes Rape Only If It Was Intentionally Deceptive at the Outset” – Karnataka High Court  delivered a notable judgment quashing the FIR and charge sheet against the petitioners for alleged offences under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 504 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that consensual relationships spanning over seven years cannot be retrospectively classified as rape or cheating unless the accused's promise of marriage was false and deceptive from the inception.

The judgment emphasized the distinction between consensual sexual relationships and offences of rape arising out of a "misconception of fact," as well as the abuse of criminal process in long-term consensual relationships that culminate in unsuccessful marriage discussions.

The case arose from a failed engagement and allegations of breach of promise to marry. The first petitioner (accused) and the second respondent (complainant) had been in a consensual relationship for seven years. They were engaged on November 28, 2021, but the engagement eventually broke down due to family disputes. Subsequently, the complainant alleged that she had consented to sexual relations based on the petitioner's false promise of marriage.

The complainant filed an FIR under Sections 376, 417, and 504 IPC. A charge sheet was subsequently filed, implicating the first petitioner and his family members (petitioners 2-6). The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, asserting that the allegations were baseless and that the relationship was consensual.

Can consensual sexual relationships in long-term relationships amount to rape under Section 376 IPC based on an alleged false promise of marriage?

What constitutes "misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC to vitiate consent?

When can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process?

The Court ruled that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 IPC, there must be clear evidence that the promise of marriage was false and made with an intention to deceive the complainant at the time of the promise. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, which held:

“A distinction exists between a false promise to marry and a breach of a promise made in good faith but later not fulfilled. A promise is false only if it was made with no intention to marry at the outset.”

In the present case, the complainant and the first petitioner shared a consensual relationship spanning seven years, during which they engaged in physical intimacy. The Court found no evidence of a false promise or coercion, noting that the relationship was mutual and voluntary.

The Court observed that prosecuting consensual relationships under rape laws, especially after the relationship or engagement breaks down, constitutes an abuse of criminal law. Citing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, it emphasized:

“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. Courts must carefully examine whether the accused intended to marry the complainant at the time of making the promise, or if unforeseen circumstances prevented the marriage.”

The Court held that the complainant’s allegations reflected a breach of promise rather than a false promise. It reiterated that breach of promise due to genuine reasons does not constitute the offence of rape.

The complainant had also accused the petitioners of cheating under Section 417 IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 504 IPC. The Court noted that the allegations lacked substantive evidence and were grounded in personal disputes arising from the failed engagement. It observed:

“Continuing prosecution in such cases would result in harassment of the accused and misuse of the criminal process.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR and charge sheet, emphasizing that further proceedings would amount to "an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."

FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed: The FIR in Crime No. 140/2023 and Charge Sheet No. 13/2024 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara District, were quashed.

Petitioners Discharged: All petitioners, including the first petitioner and his family members, were discharged from prosecution.

The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and criminal acts under the IPC. It highlights the necessity for courts to evaluate allegations of "false promises of marriage" carefully and prevent misuse of criminal laws in matters of personal relationships. By quashing the FIR and charge sheet, the Court upheld the principles of fairness and justice, reiterating that long-term consensual relationships, without evidence of deceit, cannot be criminalized.

Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024